Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 22nd Jan 2009 12:04 UTC
Legal Remember when Steve Jobs launched the iPhone, and held it up in the air, proudly proclaiming "Boy, have we patented it", followed by a massive applause of the adoring audience? It may seem like this wasn't just an empty claim, either. During the earnings conference call yesterday, the company hinted at possible legal action against Palm were the Pre to infringe on iPhone patents.
Thread beginning with comment 344945
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: This just goes to show
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 22nd Jan 2009 14:14 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: This just goes to show"
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

the manner in which you pinch (or un-pinch?) on the screen for example, as far as im aware, that was not used in the same way before. Do you have an example where it has been?


So... If pinching can be patented... Does that mean I can patent moving my mouse to the "left" to move my "pointer" to the "left" of the "screen"?

I don't see a difference really.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[5]: This just goes to show
by majipoor on Thu 22nd Jan 2009 14:33 in reply to "RE[4]: This just goes to show"
majipoor Member since:
2009-01-22

So... If pinching can be patented... Does that mean I can patent moving my mouse to the "left" to move my "pointer" to the "left" of the "screen"?

I don't see a difference really.


You can try to patent it and your request will be rejected.

If you are really interested in knowing your facts (are you?), you should google a little bit to know which patents Apple has registered on the iPhone UI or hardware.

AFAIK, they have claimed to have 200+ patents which HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED.

You can argue whether patents are a good thing or not, but I don't see why other company would be allowed to sue over patent infringment and not Apple.

And I'm sure Palm has many patents too and would sue any company if necessary.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: This just goes to show
by spiderman on Thu 22nd Jan 2009 14:49 in reply to "RE[5]: This just goes to show"
spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

The patent on doubly linked lists has been accepted as well:
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7028023/fulltext.html
It was accepted in ... 2006!
I learned linked lists in 1997 and they exist since the 70's or before...
It does not mean it is enforceable. It does just mean that no one bothered enough to go and show them the prior art. The patent just stands there and will be invalidated the first time someone tries to sue with it. It happened many times with other frivolous patents. The patent office accepts almost anything and they invalidate it afterwards when someone come to invalidate it.

Edited 2009-01-22 14:52 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[5]: This just goes to show
by Adurbe on Thu 22nd Jan 2009 15:05 in reply to "RE[4]: This just goes to show"
Adurbe Member since:
2005-07-06

"the manner in which you pinch (or un-pinch?) on the screen for example, as far as im aware, that was not used in the same way before. Do you have an example where it has been?
So... If pinching can be patented... Does that mean I can patent moving my mouse to the "left" to move my "pointer" to the "left" of the "screen"? I don't see a difference really. "


the mouse has become ubiquitous BUT dont forget someone DID invent the 'move mouse right, pointer moves right' functionality. The inventor (in my opinion) should have the right to protect that invention and the r+d invested into its creation (this is primarily served by patents and copyright)

Remember that with all patents, if you can prove prior art then that patent becomes void

if you can find an example where "apple's pinch" was used before (as described in the patent) please publish it

Macworld previously had a feature on apple taking advantage of this patent 'way back' in 2007
http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?RSS&NewsID=18340

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[6]: This just goes to show
by spiderman on Thu 22nd Jan 2009 15:22 in reply to "RE[5]: This just goes to show"
spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

It is not only prio art that invalidates a patent. Obviousness does also invalidate a patent.
Let say I get an effective way to track eye movements with a webcam. I could patent the idea to use this eye tracker as a pointing device, but this would quickly be invalidated. Not because of prior art (I'm the first to track eye, so I'm the first who can use that as a pointing device), but because it is obvious.

Reply Parent Score: 3